Gender again. Sorry!

[Ian H]

Not really. Being trans is not a sign of being mentally ill.

Maybe not, but what about constantly regurgitating half-read conspiracy theories?

 

[AndyRM]

Maybe not, but what about constantly regurgitating half-read conspiracy theories?

Not my thing at all. And pretty boring really. But some people seem to like it.

 

[Deleted member 159]

Damn well better see a psychiatrist first if you're planning on cutting your nuts off

 

[Milzy]

Not really. Being trans is not a sign of being mentally ill.

You are probably right but millions won’t agree.

 

[theclaud]

It's not feminism to allow men into the female category because it's asserted they were socialised as girls. It's terrible for the athletes involved that their condition went undiagnosed and that sports organisations didn't take action sooner, which has made things worse. If this is your argument though you might as well argue for inclusion on the basis of poverty or lack of opportunity. We all know girls drop out of sports after age 11, and that women's sports struggles to attract funding. How do you think any of this is helped by including males in the female category?

They've faced the same difficulties as women so they should be allowed to run in the female category as reward? This is a nonsensical argument that punishes actually women

'It's asserted'. 'Allow' 'men' into the female category. Listen to yourself. We're talking here about something real that happens to children at birth and throughout their formative years. Something that prescribes and limits who they can and should be. Something that happened to Semenya. If the structure of sport can't handle the reality of diverse sex characteristics that don't match its binary options, whilst at the same time it celebrates and develops outliers and exceptions in every other physical characteristic, then maybe it's the structure that needs rethinking, instead of forcing athletes to dope to fit.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Diverse sex characteristics? It's an acknowledged medical condition. It's not a variant like having red hair. It's not an 'outlier' characteristic like having big feet in swimming or something. The 5 ARD dsd involves literally being male but with a disorder of abnormal genitalia.

The physical characteristic it 'celebrates' is the 10 to 40% advantage that being male gives in most sports. Far higher than big hands, being tall, excessively flexible etc., which give only fractional gains.

Your suggestion that the structure of sports be changed in order to accommodate 5 ARD athletes is simply ideological. Difficult though life undoubtedly is for dsd individuals, being admitted to the women's category where they have an unfair advantage shouldn't be the compensation for that.

 

[classic33]

Diverse sex characteristics? It's an acknowledged medical condition. It's not a variant like having red hair. It's not an 'outlier' characteristic like having big feet in swimming or something. The 5 ARD dsd involves literally being male but with a disorder of abnormal genitalia.

The physical characteristic it 'celebrates' is the 10 to 40% advantage that being male gives in most sports. Far higher than big hands, being tall, excessively flexible etc., which give only fractional gains.

Your suggestion that the structure of sports be changed in order to accommodate 5 ARD athletes is simply ideological. Difficult though life undoubtedly is for dsd individuals, being admitted to the women's category where they have an unfair advantage shouldn't be the compensation for that.

You're against giving drugs to those who want to take them, simply because you believe you know better than them what they want. Whilst at the same time you're for giving drugs to people that don't want to take them?

How do you decide who should be given treatment. We know you're not medically qualified to make that judgement. How do you know what the long term damage of reducing, by means of medication, a naturally occurring chemical in the body.

As for young kids not being able to consent to medication, if they didn't want to take it they wouldn't.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You're against giving drugs to those who want to take them, simply because you believe you know better than them what they want.

I'm against giving puberty blockers to children because the long term effects are, at best, unknown and because I don't think 11 year old can understand the consequences of taking them.

Whilst at the same time you're for giving drugs to people that don't want to take them?

No. I am in favour of keeping the Women's category in sport for women. Reducing testosterone does not mitigate all male advantage.

How do you decide who should be given treatment. We know you're not medically qualified to make that judgement. How do you know what the long term damage of reducing, by means of medication, a naturally occurring chemical in the body.

We don't. Which is why it's not a good idea to encourage people to do it in order to be in the category to which they do not belong.

As for young kids not being able to consent to medication, if they didn't want to take it they wouldn't.

Kids would consent to staying up til 3am and swimming in canals if you let them. Nobody thinks 'because they want to' should be the standard of safe guarding paediatric medicine should aspire to.

 

[Ian H]

'It's asserted'. 'Allow' 'men' into the female category. Listen to yourself. We're talking here about something real that happens to children at birth and throughout their formative years. Something that prescribes and limits who they can and should be. Something that happened to Semenya. If the structure of sport can't handle the reality of diverse sex characteristics that don't match its binary options, whilst at the same time it celebrates and develops outliers and exceptions in every other physical characteristic, then maybe it's the structure that needs rethinking, instead of forcing athletes to dope to fit.

Indeed. The myth of the 'level playing field' needs to be debunked.

 

[classic33]

I'm against giving puberty blockers to children because the long term effects are, at best, unknown and because I don't think 11 year old can understand the consequences of taking them.


No. I am in favour of keeping the Women's category in sport for women. Reducing testosterone does not mitigate all male advantage.

We don't. Which is why it's not a good idea to encourage people to do it in order to be in the category to which they do not belong.


Kids would consent to staying up til 3am and swimming in canals if you let them. Nobody thinks 'because they want to' should be the standard of safe guarding paediatric medicine should aspire to.

You're standard rebuttal is that they shouldn't be given a course of treatment, because you feel its wrong. And that big pharma has an interest in ensuring it continues. There's kids making decisions on long term treatment for themselves. And these days it's easier than ever, no more reading through actual books to find out the effects and side effects of a medication.

No. You're in favour of people being put on a course of medication to suit your views. That has been your stance throughout on here. Before it was "a natural advantage" and they should be allowed to compete as women. To deny them this right, was wrong. Why the switch now?

In your view.

 

[theclaud]

Your suggestion that the structure of sports be changed in order to accommodate 5 ARD athletes is simply ideological.

'Sport should accommodate the full range of human beings as they are' is an 'ideological' position, but 'athletes should be coerced into unnecessary medical procedures and monstered all over social media in order to uphold the sex binary' is some kind of channelling of the right and natural Order of Things. Right. Got you.

 

[Deleted member 159]

They do, it's called disabled Olympics.

You cannot accommodate every tiny sub group.

'The needs of the many'

 

[theclaud]

They do, it's called disabled Olympics.

You cannot accommodate every tiny sub group.

'The needs of the many'

 

[monkers]

They do, it's called disabled Olympics.

You cannot accommodate every tiny sub group.

'The needs of the many'

Which of these is true?

a) An athlete has the right to have no serious competition.
b) An athlete needs no serious competition.
c) An athlete wants no serious competition.
d) An athlete prefers no serious competition.
e) An athlete hopes for no serious competition.
f) An athlete can not prove they are the best when there is no serious competition.
g) An athlete will relish the opportunity to beat all-comers.

 

[AndyRM]

Damn well better see a psychiatrist first if you're planning on cutting your nuts off

Unless you go down some sketchy back alley route, yeah, you have to. The majority of folk who are trans want things done properly. Timelines and waiting lists can be frustrating, but the idea that folk just wake up and go all Shania Twain and that's that is a myth.